But is that a fact

(it’s not)

You could argue it’s more like Sekiro but Zelda. Or like Candy Crush but Zelda.

I don’t keep up with youtube alternatives but this one doesn’t require login https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=DaJWEjimeDM the video isn’t loading easily but it seems to work after a bit

deleted by creator

https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM?si=rwX4eZZQvGV22iiR first half is citing two guys who think the Sphinx is older than we think (including your guy); third guy and after show that the erosion and the faults didn’t come from rain from outside, but water infiltration from below, from before the Sphinx was carved into the rock, and that yes, we do see it in other places in the same rock layer. Other buildings above it don’t have that erosion from below. So the erosion is indeed old, but it didn’t happen from rain falling after the Sphinx was carved out, so you can’t use it to determine when the Sphinx was carved out of the ground.

I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering

You can consider an idea and build a theory around it, but once your basic idea is disproven, your whole theory disappears. And the idea that the Sphinx erosion doesn’t match the agreed upon age has already been proven wrong - as in, it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE. So you don’t have your premise that the erosion doesn’t match the official age, and that means there is nothing left to consider here until you actually have something new, anything else is fanfiction.

Considering new idea is perfectly fine, no one disagrees with that, but you are not considering new ideas, you are considering old ideas that were proven wrong and not listening when someone tells you why it’s wrong. Get new material.

I think this is the one, the Merer diary about Akhet Khufu (their name for the pyramid) and the transport of stones by boat from known quarries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_Merer

The diary was found a good decade ago, it’s not even recent. This particular diary anyway, I don’t know about more recent discoveries about the waterways. I mean, beside OP’s article.

Dark matter means there’s a gravitational effect that we can see, but the source is in a spot where we see nothing, so we guess that there has to be something that we can’t see - that doesn’t emit any radiation, starting with light / heat. The lack of electromagnetic radiation is why it’s dark, and the gravitational effect is why it has to be matter - as in something heavy, particles that have a gravitational effect.

We know spots where “matter that we can’t see” should be. The biggest classic example is the bullet cluster, where most of the gravitational effect is outside of the light we see. What we can make progress on is take a list and strike out what it isn’t. We look at some kind of particle we know about, and we check if that could have the effect we see. If it can’t, we shorten the list of what dark matter might be. There’s been a few times along the decades where people said “this time we might have found the one” but so far, we keep shortening the list. The day we say “this time we actually detected something” is the day it won’t be called “dark” anymore, since “dark” is literally because we can’t detect anything coming out of it. Either we’re not looking hard enough to see the radiations we could expect from known matter (except we should be seeing something already with our current tech), or it emits something we can’t see, new types of emissions that we don’t know about. If we ever find a new type of matter that doesn’t emit anything we can see, then it can still be called dark, until we learn to detect it.

It’s possible that our understanding of gravity is wrong and the source of the gravity we see comes from something else in another spot, and the spot we’re looking at doesn’t have any matter we can’t see; but everytime we find something new about gravity, it keeps reinforcing our understanding of it and decreasing the odds that we’re wrong about it and dark matter doesn’t exist. And the theories about gravity that come up to fit the effect we see always create other problems by failing to explain other observations, whereas the current gravity theory does explain everything else. The window for “our current models of gravity are wrong” just keeps getting tighter and harder to justify with every observation that keeps getting more accurate.